- (1.) THERE was a dispute between Bhagwania and others and Mahadeo and others regarding a field of 151 bighas about which a case under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. was instituted in the court of Nazim,udaipur, who decided the case in favour of Bhagwania and others on 5th July 1949, and held that Bhagwania and others were in possession of disputed field. He, therefore, made an order declaring the party of Bhagwania to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbid-ing all disturbance of such possession until such eviction. The opposite party applied in revision to the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, who made ex party order on 13th July 1949 directing that till the disposal of the revision petition the party of Bhagwania should not cultivate the field which was to be treated as under attachment, and further gave notice to the opposite party to show cause why the rule be not made absolute. The party of Bhagwania and others have now come in revision before this court against the aforesaid ad interim order of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu.
(2.) THE applicants challenge the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge on the ground that under sec. 433 Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge has no authority to suspend the execution of an order under section 145 of a subordinate court. THE counsel for the applicants have cited A. I. R. 1949 Cal. 241 on this point, wherein it has been held that a Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction under sec. 435 Cr. P. C. to suspend an order for possession under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. , nor does he possess any inherent power to stay the carrying out of such an order. It may be observed that the facts, under which the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, has made astay order are not much different from the facts in the case 1949 Cal. 241 referred to by the applicants. Under sec. 436 Cr. P. C. a Sessions Judge has got power to suspend execution of a sentence but an order under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. is not a sentence in any sense of the term. It becomes obvious from the language of sec. 435 that a Sessions Court does not possess an|authority to suspend the execution of an /order under sec. 14k. In 1926 Mad. 139 and 1948 Mad. 133 the High Court of Madras has expressed an opinion that even the High Court does not possess power to stay ad interim the execution of an order under sec. 145 (4) Cr. P. C. Under the circumstances, the order of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, cannot be upheld. Mr. Bhandari, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite party, has not been able to refute the contention of the applicants in this behalf. The Order of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated the 13th July 1948 is vacated. .;